I know as a newbie it took me a while to figure out where to file these issues. If I was a shopper I would have given up and figured the site doesn't offer them.

Listing them by the titles in the indica and adding a note in the info that they are also listed under Devil's Reign while leaving Devil's Reign open wouldn't cost anyone any trouble or hassle. Users have two chances to find the books and some of us would have the option to list multiple copys under both listings.

There seems to be lots of discrepencies in the 97/98 Marvel range. I was reading X-Men/Dr. Doom 98 last night knowing it wasn't listed by indica and trying to figure out why it got left in the X-Men Annuals when everything else X gets booted out of the run when the indica changes anything.

At least that one worked out in my favor. Silver Surfer/Thor 98 had me not knowing there was a Thor Annual for 1998 since it doesn't pull up in the search results lumped under Silver Surfer Annual. The old 50-50 search results, happiness for some, ignorance for others.

My suggestion was to add the indica method in in addition to the existing way. Devil's Reign is printed on the cover's in fine print that doesn't stand out so having no frame of reference to look for it that way it ended up having them tossed into the submit later box when I couldn't identify them by indica or the bold print title on the cover.

If you're gonna fudge the rules, you might as well fudge them in a way that meets everyone's needs and in this case that means adding in titles that go exactly by CCL guidelines. Then the individual user gets to decide where they list them themselves and everyone can find them.

Quote:

When these first came out, I was always under the assumption that the title was called "Devil's Reign" (not caring to look at what the indicia had to say about it back then).

I feel kinda the same way about my X books right now. I can name a whole lot of books that should be kept together instead of going by indica changes of the year whimsy. The problem here is they spent almost a year trying to convince me that everything has to be done exactly the same way by the guidelines CCL wrote. Now that they have, every time I turn around I find something that isn't. It's kinda like the whole cover price thing. By validating a Canadian Cover Price and a UK Cover Price as bonafide variants the same logic says the US Cover Price is just as valid a variant. CCL guidelines say X-Men, THOR, Dr. Doom, Quicksilver and Heroes For Hire, and Silver Surfer don't have 1998 Annuals. Common sense says they all do and we should have a way of knowing it and identifying that they exist. Somehow X-men and Silver surfer snuck in under the radar and got approved when a simple indica check would have shown the deception. Common sense says leave them and add them into the other titles as annuals also. The double listing cost's CCL almost nothing in space compared to the overall size of the database. A few drops in the ocean of listings so to speak.Bamf!!! Photobucket Pages

These issues were listed this way when the database was built. I tried to get it changed before stores opened. Didn't happen. Now we wait until it's possible to move individual issues without invalidating- too many for sale and too many cataloged."Words have meaning." - my wife

You don't have to invalidate one to have the other exist at the same time. You just include a note in both that the double listing is in place or the incorrect one may be invalidated at a later date.

Second point, even if you do invalidate the original listing, it doesn't force anyone to move anything. Most people wait until their issues listed in an invalidated title sell anyway and sometimes even come back and relist again in invalidatd titles just to have the extra exposure.

If the CCL guidelines that cover those two points are inflexible to the point they prevent the exceptions from being allowed, then the original guidelines on how they should have been listed should be as inflexible forcing it to have to occur now irregaurdless of who may or may not delist and relocate.

You don't have to invalidate one to have the other exist at the same time. You just include a note in both that the double listing is in place or the incorrect one may be invalidated at a later date.

Second point, even if you do invalidate the original listing, it doesn't force anyone to move anything. Most people wait until their issues listed in an invalidated title sell anyway and sometimes even come back and relist again in invalidatd titles just to have the extra exposure.

If the CCL guidelines that cover those two points are inflexible to the point they prevent the exceptions from being allowed, then the original guidelines on how they should have been listed should be as inflexible forcing it to have to occur now irregaurdless of who may or may not delist and relocate.

The systems either flexible or it's not.

First, this is a database (I know we've said that before). In a database you don't list a title twice. That being said, I have been trying to get CCL to institute a "pointer" system. If instituted we could list those titles by indicia and if you clicked on the title it would send you to Devil's Reign. It would be like in Overstreet where you look up a title like He-Man and there is a note to "See Masters of the Universe". We could use Pointers on every title that there is a question on. It shouldn't be too hard to put in place because it would be a lot like the current invalidation links. My suggestion has met with positive responses, but no action as of yet.

Second, periodically CCL will remove invalid issues and titles. Keeping books listed for sale or inventoried under invalid listings is just asking for trouble. A word to the wise.

In lieu of a "pointer system" which I think would be great in these cases. For titles like the Marvel '98 annuals, a simple note in the bio directing a person to the title where the '98 annual is located could be helpful. Also for a easier searchable method couldn't the other title be added to the "related titles" list. For instance under the Silver Surfer Annual title in the related titles section you could list Thor Annual with a comment '98 Annual listed here.

1) This is a database, not eBay. One comic book exists, so only one entry should exist.

2) Everyone needs to remember that this database was started in 2007 with a skeleton listing of information (mostly just title and issue numbers taken from other websites with few covers, no variants and only comic books) by people who didn't collect comics. It wasn't until early 2009 when there were a large number of volunteer approvers who actually knew comics making sure stuff was accurate.

3) From the guidelines: "Cover Titles should match the indicia whenever possible." It's built right into the guidelines that it's not always possible or ideal to follow the indicia, but it is preferred.

Now, the long answer for specific comments.

re: 1998 Marvel Annuals - Referencing the fact that this site was built in 2007 from other site's information, most resources (print and online) listed the 1998 Marvel annuals the way we do because it was announced and generally understood at the time that the annual was for the first team/character in the title. In 1997, Marvel put out a Daredevil annual that co-starred Deadpool with Deadpool's name on the cover and indicia. It sold like hotcakes and people loved it. Marvel being Marvel, they decided to do their entire 1998 line of annuals like Daredevil's 1997 issue. Therefore, Overstreet, Wizard and most online resources all had the issues the way we do and that's how many collectors know the books and have them in their collection.

For your specific complaints:

X-Men/Dr. Doom 98 - There has never been an ongoing Dr. Doom series, so this one is pretty obviously the X-Men annual for the year. Anyone searching for Doom may start by a title search, but most likely would do a character search because Doom has rarely held his own titles. Just a handful of mini-series. Anyone collecting based on characters knows better than to just try and find titles with that characters name in it.

"everything else X gets booted out of the run when the indica changes anything" - I know this is a major gripe of yours, but you need to get over it. These aren't tiny changes to indicia or short one or two issue changes. From X-Men to New X-Men back to X-Men to X-Men Legacy you have 113 issues, 42 issues, 51 issues and 69 issues. Those are major runs all with different cover and indica titles. They do not belong together.

"It appears it is possible to list some of the 98 Annuals under indica name."Those were listed individually because they were the lone annual for the title. They used to be consistent with the other 1998 annuals, but were changed. I'm not claiming rightly or wrongly (although I have my opinion), just that they were and what the logic was.

"Silver Surfer/Thor 98 had me not knowing there was a Thor Annual for 1998 since it doesn't pull up in the search results lumped under Silver Surfer Annual." - Because, as I just explained, the Thor series didn't have an annual that year. Silver Surfer did and it guested Thor.

"By validating a Canadian Cover Price and a UK Cover Price as bonafide variants the same logic says the US Cover Price is just as valid a variant." - Like the comment "This is a database" has been said over and over again, I know I've said this multiple times: Different U.S. prices have always merited a variant listing.

"You don't have to invalidate one to have the other exist at the same time." - Yes, we do. Because this is a database, not eBay. One issue equals one listing. This isn't a site where every user does whatever they hell they want.

"Second point, even if you do invalidate the original listing, it doesn't force anyone to move anything." - No, it doesn't, but then you run the risk of no one seeing it.

"Most people wait until their issues listed in an invalidated title sell anyway" - I know for a fact that "most people" don't because I get response PMs from stores all the time saying they've moved their inventory and thanks for the heads up.

"There is no listing for a Thor 98 Annual. It's only listed incorrectly under Silver Surfer Annual. It jumps from 1994 to 1999." - It's not incorrectly under Silver Surfer. There was no genuine Thor annual that year."Words have meaning." - my wife

I agree adding another title makes no sense, this is a database after all. But like I said earlier you could just mention the Silver Surfer/Thor Annual in the bio section of the existing title Thor Annual also you could list Silver Surfer Annual under the related titles section on the Thor Annual title with a comment explaining.

1) This is a database, not eBay. One comic book exists, so only one entry should exist.

If having only one entry listed incorrectly hides the information from the the public then it's right to not have an extra under the title in the indica? That's just stupid. There is no rule book that says you can't have an issue listed in multiple places on the rare occasions it would be appropriate.

Quote:

2) Everyone needs to remember that this database was started in 2007 with a skeleton listing of information (mostly just title and issue numbers taken from other websites with few covers, no variants and only comic books) by people who didn't collect comics. It wasn't until early 2009 when there were a large number of volunteer approvers who actually knew comics making sure stuff was accurate.

Common sense says some flexability should be allowed to allow for a less than perfect filing system to allow it to function for everyone.

Quote:

3) From the guidelines: "Cover Titles should match the indicia whenever possible." It's built right into the guidelines that it's not always possible or ideal to follow the indicia, but it is preferred.

There's no reason they can't be listed by indica right now, it's possible and preferred as you say.

Quote:

X-Men/Dr. Doom 98 - There has never been an ongoing Dr. Doom series, so this one is pretty obviously the X-Men annual for the year.

I just finished reading it. It's primarily a Dr. Doom story as he searches for a way to aquire the power of Onslaught. As such the X-men have no active role in the story although a little direct interaction with Magneto for a period of time and being noticed by the Phoenix does occur. Based on the contents of the actual story a one-shot tile listing by indica makes the most sense and follows the CCL guidelines of going by indica.

Quote:

Anyone collecting based on characters knows better than to just try and find titles with that characters name in it.

I still can't swear I know how to do a search by anything other than title. It was extremely confusing when I first got here. I searched the search box that appears on the side of every page. Eventually Tamwood got me to try using the library search occasionally. While I'm sure there are plenty of people that this stuff seems simple to, I'm also sure there are plenty of people like myself who at least in the beginning only do title searches and may not come back long term to learn other methods.

Quote:

"Silver Surfer/Thor 98 had me not knowing there was a Thor Annual for 1998 since it doesn't pull up in the search results lumped under Silver Surfer Annual." - Because, as I just explained, the Thor series didn't have an annual that year. Silver Surfer did and it guested Thor.

I haven't read that one yet to know. I haven't seen an Indica that says there was a Silver Surfer Annual for that year though. Just an interpretation that goes against CCL guidelines about listing by indica that takes a two charecter one shot and trys to make it a singular title annual.

Quote:

"You don't have to invalidate one to have the other exist at the same time." - Yes, we do. Because this is a database, not eBay. One issue equals one listing. This isn't a site where every user does whatever they hell they want.

I read through the definition of database at wiki yesterday looking for the rule that says an item that's applicable to a number of different categorys can't be listed in each where appropriate and can't find it. If anything I was left with the feeling that some flexability was essential to construct databases applicable to the wider ranges of users across broader spectrums of diverse data. I don't see myself or anyone else asking to have users doing "whatever they hell they want", just a little common sense that says an occasional item in the database can qualify for listing in multiple locations or at least until such time as improvements to the database can be implemented like pointer systems and such. Simple common sense flexability. You say it's apples, the indica says it's oranges, reading the thing says it's a pear. Sometimes it really is best handled by making a fruit salad.

Quote:

"Second point, even if you do invalidate the original listing, it doesn't force anyone to move anything." - No, it doesn't, but then you run the risk of no one seeing it.

It's a risk that some will not see it but if you have multiple copys it's not really hurting anything to have 10 filed where most people would look and one filed where the minority might wind up at based on looking for a title by cover title or character name or whatever. I don't do it myself anymore intentionally but under some circumstances like with the Devil's Reign listing if the actual indica titles are ever put in then I'd be willing to leave a copy under the old listing since some people may search for it that way and it wouldn't show up in a title search from the front page store search unless at least one issue was kept loaded so they could follow the information from there to the correct titles.

Quote:

"Most people wait until their issues listed in an invalidated title sell anyway" - I know for a fact that "most people" don't because I get response PMs from stores all the time saying they've moved their inventory and thanks for the heads up.

You're right. I have no frame of reference for "most", just the one's I see still listed along with conversations I've had with other stores. The way Alan explained it to me over at Brett's was that we paid to have items listed until they sell so if CCL approvers want them moved they should move them themselves at no cost since the cost for listing it was already paid.

Quote:

"everything else X gets booted out of the run when the indica changes anything" - I know this is a major gripe of yours, but you need to get over it. These aren't tiny changes to indicia or short one or two issue changes. From X-Men to New X-Men back to X-Men to X-Men Legacy you have 113 issues, 42 issues, 51 issues and 69 issues. Those are major runs all with different cover and indica titles. They do not belong together.

Issue 2 belongs after isue 1. Issue 3 belongs after issue 2. Repeat through until the end. They belong together, should be together, and are listed together in some other places. The only thing keeping them seperate here is the lack of a simple / system that allows for indica's to change anyway they want and back again without changing how common sense stores them. If they were truley new titles then they would have started over with issue #1, not kept going.

X-Men(1991)/New X-Men/X-Men Legacy

keeps them together and allows for all the issues to turn up in a single search.A simple, common sense change that allows the purists to have their indica titles listed while most people buying X-Men books get to keep them stored in the same box in the order they actually read them. I really doubt that when the indica changed names, anyone here had the remaining subscriptions payments refunded and found themselves forced to have to subscribe to a new title. I doubt anyone had them left out of their hold boxes at the B&M's since they were the same title. If those two things didn't occur then it wasn't intended to be a new title. No number #1.

Dude. I like you as a seller, but you need to let things go. SOME. THINGS. ARE. NOT. GOING. TO. CHANGE.

We are NEVER going to list all the X-Men titles together. Let it go. It's not going to happen. They are different titles, with different indicias. They changed.

We are NEVER going to add issues in multiple places. Let it go. It's not going to happen.

And CCL has SO MANY ways to search this database. Six different search options in a box to your left. Search by Title. Publisher. Story Arc. Character. Credits. Release Date.

You want to blame someone for screwy titles/indicias? Call Marvel. While you're at it, yell at them for the last dozen issues of Captain America and..., the point 1 crap and the fact that there are half-a-dozen Avengers #1 issues from half-a-dozen different years.

I really do think you're a great seller, and an asset to the site, but some of the things you focus on, and won't let go after being told *repeatedly* by multiple people ... it's just. Stop beating the dead horse, man.

"You don't have to invalidate one to have the other exist at the same time." - Yes, we do. Because this is a database, not eBay. One issue equals one listing. This isn't a site where every user does whatever they hell they want.

I read through the definition of database at wiki yesterday looking for the rule that says an item that's applicable to a number of different categorys can't be listed in each where appropriate and can't find it. If anything I was left with the feeling that some flexability was essential to construct databases applicable to the wider ranges of users across broader spectrums of diverse data. I don't see myself or anyone else asking to have users doing "whatever they hell they want", just a little common sense that says an occasional item in the database can qualify for listing in multiple locations or at least until such time as improvements to the database can be implemented like pointer systems and such. Simple common sense flexability. You say it's apples, the indica says it's oranges, reading the thing says it's a pear. Sometimes it really is best handled by making a fruit salad.

As with any kind of information system, a database is only as good as the data it contains.

Is there a rule about not having duplicate entries in a database? Probably not and as we've seen it does inadvertantly happen from time to time. Having said that, it's considered Good Practice to avoid duplicate entries in a database and it's something we try not to deliberately do.

One of the main reasons most databases try to avoid duplicating data is the flexibility you mentioned above. It's usually possible to link related items in a database through table structure and programming (such as queries), so that you don't need to waste space on duplication. Data can be linked in such a way so that what may appear to be duplicate entries to a casual observer is actually the same data mapped to different items.

Once a database has been setup, it takes coding changes to add/modify/delete these links and it's something that needs to be well tested before fielding to avoid breaking other areas of the database. This takes time and "temporarily" allowing duplicates or other invalid data as a workaround is not a good solution; it will just cause more problems down the road.

About the Annuals question that keeps coming up here. Up until recently it was CCL policy to lump all Annuals for a regular title under the same Annual title, regardless of volume or numbering (Which is why some Annual titles, such as those for the Legion of Super-Heroes, are a bit of a mess). All of the Marvel '98 Annulas got caught under that rule.

With the advent of the New 52 Annuals, the Approvers went to CCL and again asked for permission to change this. The result of that was that Annuals for new series can be treated as just that, a new series. That's why you'll see Titles listed for Action Comics Annual (1987) and Action Comics Annual (2012).

I can't recall the exact decision regarding existing Annual entries. I don't believe we were going to make changes to any of the titles currently in the database due to the numbers of issues for sale and the impact on Sellers. I choose to speak with my pocket-book

Anyone collecting based on characters knows better than to just try and find titles with that characters name in it.

I still can't swear I know how to do a search by anything other than title. It was extremely confusing when I first got here. I searched the search box that appears on the side of every page. Eventually Tamwood got me to try using the library search occasionally. While I'm sure there are plenty of people that this stuff seems simple to, I'm also sure there are plenty of people like myself who at least in the beginning only do title searches and may not come back long term to learn other methods.

Stop using the "Find Comics for Sale search" then - that's the ONLY open search box in the left column consistently. Read what the webpage actually says on it before blindly stumbling around. It's not that confusing if you actually read what's in front of you.

monidaw1 wrote:

Quote:

"You don't have to invalidate one to have the other exist at the same time." - Yes, we do. Because this is a database, not eBay. One issue equals one listing. This isn't a site where every user does whatever they hell they want.

I read through the definition of database at wiki yesterday looking for the rule that says an item that's applicable to a number of different categorys can't be listed in each where appropriate and can't find it. If anything I was left with the feeling that some flexability was essential to construct databases applicable to the wider ranges of users across broader spectrums of diverse data. I don't see myself or anyone else asking to have users doing "whatever they hell they want", just a little common sense that says an occasional item in the database can qualify for listing in multiple locations or at least until such time as improvements to the database can be implemented like pointer systems and such. Simple common sense flexability. You say it's apples, the indica says it's oranges, reading the thing says it's a pear. Sometimes it really is best handled by making a fruit salad.

Uh, no. You are right in that it would be nice to have more flexibility in the way data is connected in the database, but if you had paid attention to anything that has been written so far you would see that the database was constructed by those who DON'T know comics. And if you had paid attention to any of the other myriad posts from CCL, you'd know that they have not had any developers on staff for a few years due to financial issues. Guess what? Without a developer you can't make changes like many of us would like to see in the database. Guess what else? Trying to revise a database structure on a whim isn't a simple thing. It takes planning and testing, and more planning and more effort to be sure that a structural change will not break another component.

Quote:

"Second point, even if you do invalidate the original listing, it doesn't force anyone to move anything." - No, it doesn't, but then you run the risk of no one seeing it.

It's a risk that some will not see it but if you have multiple copys it's not really hurting anything to have 10 filed where most people would look and one filed where the minority might wind up at based on looking for a title by cover title or character name or whatever. I don't do it myself anymore intentionally but under some circumstances like with the Devil's Reign listing if the actual indica titles are ever put in then I'd be willing to leave a copy under the old listing since some people may search for it that way and it wouldn't show up in a title search from the front page store search unless at least one issue was kept loaded so they could follow the information from there to the correct titles.

monidaw1 wrote:

Quote:

"Most people wait until their issues listed in an invalidated title sell anyway" - I know for a fact that "most people" don't because I get response PMs from stores all the time saying they've moved their inventory and thanks for the heads up.

You're right. I have no frame of reference for "most", just the one's I see still listed along with conversations I've had with other stores. The way Alan explained it to me over at Brett's was that we paid to have items listed until they sell so if CCL approvers want them moved they should move them themselves at no cost since the cost for listing it was already paid.

There is NO way for CCL Approvers or staff to move an issue from one title to another. So, whatever Alan told you - it's wrong. And I'm not surprised at that. So damn sorry that we're trying to FIX inconsistencies and incorrect listings in the database and bring everything in line with following the indicia. Some is easy - some is way to big of an effort.

Please remember - that any change in where data is located in the main database then needs to be replicated down to each members' local collection database. Yeah, not exactly a simple task. But since you continue to remain blind about this being a collecting database, I doubt you'll understand that.

I echo Tamwood - you've been a great seller to purchase from in my experience: quick shipping, issues in really nice shape, great communication - but this continual bashing on the system and beating things over and over is extremely frustrating and counter-productive.

I really do think you're a great seller, and an asset to the site, but some of the things you focus on, and won't let go after being told *repeatedly* by multiple people ... it's just. Stop beating the dead horse, man.

What you call beating a dead horse I call keeping common sense presented so others can know the option is out there and may either result over time in garnering more support for the common sense to be implemented in the future.

Quote:

We are NEVER going to list all the X-Men titles together. Let it go. It's not going to happen. They are different titles, with different indicias. They changed.

If I truley believed the system was completely rigid and inflexible then there'd be no point in putting effort into the system at all. It may not change today, it may not change tommorrow but you never know what the future may hold. Who's to know for sure that the entire setup isn't sold off to new owners in a few years who may want to broaden it's range of appeal. Nothing is ever absolute.

As mentioned earlier, the system is flexible enough to allow books in not listed by indica so therefore it's a reasonible assumption that the exception to the rule can be applied to other titles over time where simple common sense says it should.

Quote:

Stop using the "Find Comics for Sale search" then - that's the ONLY open search box in the left column consistently. Read what the webpage actually says on it before blindly stumbling around. It's not that confusing if you actually read what's in front of you.

I'm learning but that doesn't change the fact that other first time users have the problem and may not be back enough times to learn. Any website I go to I search the obvious search box and don't tend to go digging around for alternative ways of searching.

Quote:

Trying to revise a database structure on a whim isn't a simple thing. It takes planning and testing, and more planning and more effort to be sure that a structural change will not break another component.

Noone's trying to revise a databases structure, just take a few exceptions to the rule and have them also show under the existing rules which in this case would simply mean listing them by indica title with an option of leaving the other ways not invalidated until the software can get tweeked. If that's not an option because we're too inflexible then list them by indica title like the guidelines suggest and invalidate until your hearts content. As long as you don't take the first step, the users will continue to list under the incorrect title meaning they'll never be an empty period where noone will be affected and if the site grows it'll actually affect more people tomorrow than if you'd done it yesterday.

Quote:

Please remember - that any change in where data is located in the main database then needs to be replicated down to each members' local collection database. Yeah, not exactly a simple task. But since you continue to remain blind about this being a collecting database, I doubt you'll understand that.

That's what the update when you log on does automatically. No huge problem there.

Quote:

but this continual bashing on the system and beating things over and over is extremely frustrating and counter-productive.

It's called lobbying. It never ends until there's nothing to lobby for. From my point of view it's a little casual conversation on a weekend. Bamf!!! Photobucket Pages

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.